Ian, but doesn't the Schedule 1 fees come under the distress for rent rules? I'm not querying the validity of various fees here, but wondering if the wording on the letter is tantamount to misrepresentation as without a levy how can the bailiff remove goods in your absence? Is he allowed to proceed directly from this letter to removing goods with no intervening steps (which to me, is what the letter implies)? Or have I missed something glaringly obvious? This is a completely new subject area to me so I'm reading a lot and trying to understand, not trying to be deliberately "this is my opinion and you must agree with me". Thanks df

road traffic debt so county court. in Culligan v Simkin & Marstons 2008 (only at county court level, i know), judge said "Secondly, I note that r.12(2) and (3) of the 1988 Rules clearly envisage two stages. The first is the levying of the distress and the second is the removal of the goods. This gap between the two stages, and the requirement that forms 7 and 9 should be given, must be in order to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due at each stage. Accordingly, in my judgment the bailiff should not, and as a matter of law cannot, take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure." So, how could bailiff legally return and remove goods in person's absence if no intervening contact is made?

yes, it's the whole sentence - they sneak the letter through the letterbox and say they may remove goods even in your absence. BUT if you're not there and there's nothing outside (usually car), they can't levy on anything and they have to levy before they remove, don't they? Also, although this is in relation to road traffic debt, I'm pretty sure I've recently read something regarding council tax where a judge specifically said that there had to be an interval between levy and seizure to allow for possible payment, but I can't find my reference at the moment. UPDATE: it's a local government ombudsman report -focus report on bailiffs nov 2012. I think the specific reference is to council tax rather than road traffic debt, but it says: We have seen examples where bailiffs have charged for actions they have not taken. For example a ‘van fee’, better known as a Head C fee,12 which is charged for one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods. The Schedule makes it clear that a bailiff can only charge such a fee where they have entered a property and levied on goods but not removed them. Levying on goods without being in a position to remove them is called ‘constructive levy’ and is illegal. and The same firm of bailiffs charged two separate council tax debtors – Mark and Tom – for the costs of attending with a van. But the bailiffs had not entered their properties or levied on any goods, and so they were not entitled to make such a charge.

Yup, clocked the use of "may". However, that implies that they have the legal right to do so and it is down to them whether to choose to or not. But, they can't, can they? If they haven't got a levy, they can't remove goods - or am I completely getting the wrong end of the proverbial stick?

don't worry, (but thanks for reassuring) - this is now a technical exercise in anticipation of kicking some backsides, and I'm trying to gather some ammo. I've read various bits about bailiffs not being allowed to misrepresent their powers, etc - my understanding is that to remove goods, they have to levy first and then sieze/remove which would involve a Form 7 and a Form 9. The scare letter is inherently misleading, no? Does anyone know if this sort of wording has ever been challenged in court?

Hi all If the first you knew of any bailiff action was finding the following on your doormat (capitals/bolding/underlining all original), no bell having been rung.......... "I have attended today with the intention of removing your goods and chattels as are necessary to discharge the above debt and any additional ENFORCEMENT COSTS incurred. PLEASE NOTE - No further arrangements are acceptable and payment is now required in full by CLEAR FUNDS ONLY. "I will re-attend at your address at my convenience and may REMOVE goods even in your absence." would this fall foul of law/guidance in terms of a) not offering the option of some sort of payment plan and b), that last sentence about removing goods in your absence - isn't that misrepresentation? I believe, but am happy to be corrected, that they can't remove goods in your absence and especially if they don't have a signed Form 7? Thanks all

tunz, end of this LGO report has it summarized nicely rather than applying all the amendments to the original published legislation

Plodder, - oops, sorry - my bad. I totally didn't clock the words "liability order" instead of warrant. Apologies.

I'm getting confused now. Can you do a simple date/action list like below from the very beginning up to now: 12 Oct 2012 - PCN received for reason reason 15 Oct 2012 - informal challenge made for reason reason You refer to your number plates being stolen and other tickets/fines. Police report? Crime number? Date this happened? You say most of these tickets/fines were quashed - around the same time. Do the details on THIS pcn match up with make/model of your car etc? Photos to go with this PCN - any evidence there that it wasn't your car? Meanwhile phone TEC on 01604 619450 and ask them for dates and actions - a full list, including if the warrant was reissued. Also phone council and use (I think it's dx100's list) to ask: You need to speak to someone at the Council and ask the following questions: 1 - how many Liability Orders they have against you 2 - the dates they were obtained 3 - the addresses they were for 4 - the period of time each covers 5 - how much each one was for 6 - how much is still outstanding 7 - the dates they were passed on for enforcement 8 - the dates & amounts of any payments from TEC: What happens when I file a valid Statutory Declaration/Witness Statement? TEC will revoke the Order for Recovery. This does not mean that the penalty charge has been cancelled. The Local Authority may continue to pursue the charge and will contact you if it intends to take further action. Finally, do you have any proof of the dates when you were away, when this letter came? So that you can put forward a convincing argument that you didn't refuse it, you were unaware of it. Do you now have a copy of it? Can you get a copy if not? Do you know what it said? df

You said "I replied to court summons which was successful." - can you elaborate?

PT, yes Council in their letter of objection acknowledged that they had current address through the informal reps via their website but were obliged to send all paperwork to DVLA address which was late in being updated. Parking person at council told us over the phone that they object to all OOT applications as a matter of course - sadly no recording of that, though. thanks for the heads-up about asking for costs if we win.

personal hearing for N244 and yes, will hold off on sending the email until after that. yes, warrant issued to address 1, reissued to address 2, bailiff turned up at address 3. TEC confirmed in writing no reissue to address 3. Council don't see a problem with that.............. They are about to be educated in the error of their ways.

ok, it would help it you could put dates to the actions outlined in your first post. Also email/then post bailiffs with the following (I'm not claiming credit for it), although I would ask for a calculated breakdown, rather than just a breakdown because then it forces them to show how they arrive at the figures. "From: My Name My Address . To: Acme Bailiff Co Bailiff House . Ref: Account No: 123456 . Dear Sir . With reference to the above account, Can you please provide me with a breakdown of the charges. . This includes: a - the time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee. b - the reason for the fee. c - the name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged. d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Bailiff(s) was/were certificated at. e - the date of the Certification. . This is not a Subject access request under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 so does not incur a fee of £10. You are obliged to provide this information. . I require this information within 14 days. . Yours faithfully . Ripped off customer" . I have to say though, ignoring whatever was in that letter was probably not the best thing to do.

Plodder, sorry, yes, it's a PCN and is kind of an offshoot of this thread that I started -possible-unlawful-action-by-bailiff - The question of actual fees charged by bailiff has only come up recently after sending your pro-forma enquiry (thank you for that). We have N244 hearing next week and really hoping that judge will rewind back to PCN stage - in which case council have said they will refund anyway which is why I was wondering about not sending it to bailiffs just yet.

Oh, yes, - one of the 3 pieces of paper we do have. One threatening letter, one part warrant with the wrong address on it and one receipt for some illegal fees............ I'm just now wondering whether to sit on the email to the bailiffs for the moment and make it part of the complaint that the council are currently ignoring and will go to LGO as soon as they ignore it for the final time. On another point, I spoke to national debt helpline today as well and worryingly they seem to think that the address on a warrant of execution isn't important as long as it's the correct name. So, how would that work in terms of really common names - it would give bailiffs carte blanche to pick on anyone with a matching name.....

All, The facts: bailiff turns up and demands X amount of money which is paid. Email sent to bailiff company asking for list of charges. Their reply amounts to LESS than the bailiff charged and also doesn't confirm to the allowed charges. I understand where the difference comes from. First question - is bailiff company held to the amounts in this email ? Second question - do I email them and if so, which version do I send? Version A - asking for calculation of how charges were arrived at as unable to reconcile with amount charged on the day. Version B - as above but also querying levy/van fee as they were applied on same day and no levy was made so bailiff wouldn't have known that there were necessarily any goods to levy Version C - as above, but asking for copy of Form 7 if bailiff insists he had levied (no form given). (Company has previously stated that they do not hold copies of originals! Doesn't this then mean it comes down to he said/she said?) Version D - as suggested by CAGgers....... Thanks

Bailiffbreaker, helping a friend in a similar situation. Regarding the pcn - by the time it gets to bailiffs it's original FULL charge plus 50% plus either £5 or £7 court fee for the warrant (not sure when it went up to 7). So that's your starting point. Regarding the bailiff register - if you checked the central register, it is woefully out of date - I ended up phoning round five different courts only to find out that the "person" was registered, so you may well have a bit of legwork to do - try starting with your "home" court. You need to be more forthcoming on this registered letter - from whom? You can file a N244 to apply for a review of the refusal of the OOT refusal (I was told by my council that they object to OOT as a matter of course) - but this will cost you either £45/80 (I think) for either a postal review or a review in front of a district judge. If you go down this route, make sure that on the application you ask to have the filing fee refunded if you win. If you're on a limited income you might not have to pay - see Form EX160A. The LGO won't have anything to do with you until you have exhausted the Council's stated complaint procedure. demented

newme, I was confused as well - wondered if I'd lost more marbles than I'd realised and/or suddenly developed hitherto unknown computer skills , but eventually put it down to it refreshing when people voted on the poll....

tomtubby, we have N244 hearing next week. I sent info as you requested, but do you have any specific tips for the plea to judge or do we just reiterate that council sent docs to previous address. thanks

Serrnao, when you got the breakdown of fees from Equita, was it via the letter that dx100uk suggested you send? That specifically asks where bailiff is certificated. When you say you searched the bailiff records - if you mean the so-called Central Register, that is MONTHS out of date - I recently tried to find a bailiff on there. He wasn't registered but they said he had an application in with X Court. I ended up phoning X, Y, Z and then A and B courts in the end as the application had been moved round the country.............. and dammit, yes he was on the list.

Brassnecked - I know. Complaint in with Council who are steadfastly ignoring it and saying all is well. Unfortunately by law bailiff can clamp and I can only find guidance/codes of conduct saying that they shouldn't, not actual law. If the car had been on the street it would have been safe from clamping from what I understand but because bailiff came to home.................

clamping blue badge/disabled tax vehicle

Morphster, I'm helping a friend with a similar case at the moment. I would also call Northampton TEC Helpdesk (option 6) and ask them to confirm when they received your OOT forms and when they processed them. If it was (reasonably) before 4pm, then the Council would have been informed on the daily 4pm secure email feed. If it was after 4pm then it wouldn't have been processed until the next day. There is at least one council who seems to deliberately NOT check the feed until the next day, thus allowing the bailiff on his merry way. You can also email TEC for written confirmation of a) when it was received b) when it was processed and c) when they informed the council - ask for times as well as dates. TEC User Guide states 7.4 If a valid out of time is processed, the TEC will email the authority and all enforcement action must be suspended immediately; Civil Procedure Rules state: Applications to suspend a warrant of execution 8.1 Where – (1) the respondent makes an application under paragraph 5; and (2) before that application is determined, a warrant of execution is issued, the local authority must suspend enforcement of the warrant of execution until the application for an extension order is determined. (Rule 75.8(b) provides that, where a court order is deemed to have been revoked following the filing of a statutory declaration or witness statement, any execution issued on the order will cease to have effect.) So I would also be on to council - in writing - marked Formal Complaint - asking why they have not adhered to this. Also - was your address on the V5 logbook correct as of the date of the parking offence? If you moved/hadn't updated address, that is where the council will have sent letters, etc. AND - if your dad paid for the car and he has the receipt etc in his name (albeit you are registered keeper), then get copy of that and email to bailiff head office and insist they confirm in writing that they understand that the car is not yours - bailiff can NOT take something that doesn't belong to you - but that doesn't stop them trying! fyi - from my experience, the parking people at the Council don't give a stuff, don't know the law and want to tell you to deal with the bailiff. You might also want to pop over to the Bailiff sub-forum - but it help if you could produce a timeline - date - received PCN for.... Date - appealed online blah blah Date.....

This form has recently been updated and the application form and notes are now combined into one document EX160A - the first one on the list here http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/GetForms.do?court_forms_num=ex160&court_forms_title=&court_forms_category=

lamma, thanks for that. From my reading though it seems to be about CEO powers/obligations, not bailiffs. I think will have to wait for the FOI disclosure of SLA and hope there is something in there.